Pentax's April 1st joke camera arrives 3 months late...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jun 23, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I like that one lens. Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
    seen. Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
    they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
    otherwise. "Toy Lens." Hilarious!

    http://dpreview.com/news/1106/11062311pentaxqpreview.asp
     
    RichA, Jun 23, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 23, 8:25 am, Bowser <> wrote:
    > On 6/23/2011 8:07 AM, RichA wrote:
    >
    > > I like that one lens.  Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
    > > seen.  Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
    > > they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
    > > otherwise.  "Toy Lens."  Hilarious!

    >
    > >http://dpreview.com/news/1106/11062311pentaxqpreview.asp

    >
    > Man, this thing has "utter failure" written all over it. Who would carry
    > this when they can carry a superzoom with the same size sensor? Can't
    > wait to see the (lack of) image quality.


    What they got right:
    -magnesium body.
    -5 fps shooting
    -Built-in 3 image HDR (with that sensor, they are going to NEED it!)
    -In camera shake reduction. Though with all the extra space not taken
    up by glass in the lens bodies, they could have built it in there!!

    What they got wrong:
    -the sensor. 1/2.3" enough said.
    -the slow prime lens. f1.9 at a 47mm equivalent? That's the best
    they could muster??! They should have at least an f1.2 if not faster
    lens.
    -$250 for an EVF add-on.
    -wasting a dial on the front on "art" filters. I do not think it is
    re-assignable.
    -No pancake lens evident. I thought the idea was to make it portable
    as possible?
    -$800 price tag for what amounts to a well-built P&S.
    -Add another $80 for the extra battery, which you will need since you
    do on all the other compact IL cameras to shoot any amount of images.

    The horrifying thing is that with this camera, an 8mm lens = a 47mm on
    a FF camera. Graphically illustrating how small the sensor really is.
     
    RichA, Jun 23, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 23, 8:25 am, Bowser <> wrote:
    > On 6/23/2011 8:07 AM, RichA wrote:
    >
    > > I like that one lens.  Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
    > > seen.  Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
    > > they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
    > > otherwise.  "Toy Lens."  Hilarious!

    >
    > >http://dpreview.com/news/1106/11062311pentaxqpreview.asp

    >
    > Man, this thing has "utter failure" written all over it. Who would carry
    > this when they can carry a superzoom with the same size sensor? Can't
    > wait to see the (lack of) image quality.


    Wow! I missed this, someone posted that is has NO in-camera
    shutter!! Which means no adapting other lenses!! Enthusiasts need
    not apply!!
     
    RichA, Jun 23, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 06:01:51 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >On Jun 23, 8:25 am, Bowser <> wrote:
    >> On 6/23/2011 8:07 AM, RichA wrote:
    >>
    >> > I like that one lens.  Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
    >> > seen.  Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
    >> > they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
    >> > otherwise.  "Toy Lens."  Hilarious!

    >>
    >> >http://dpreview.com/news/1106/11062311pentaxqpreview.asp

    >>
    >> Man, this thing has "utter failure" written all over it. Who would carry
    >> this when they can carry a superzoom with the same size sensor? Can't
    >> wait to see the (lack of) image quality.

    >
    >Wow! I missed this, someone posted that is has NO in-camera
    >shutter!! Which means no adapting other lenses!! Enthusiasts need
    >not apply!!


    I imagine a mechanical shutter would get in the way of the EVF add-on
    functioning.
     
    John A., Jun 23, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 23, 10:58 am, "Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
    > RichA wrote:
    > > I like that one lens.  Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
    > > seen.  Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
    > > they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
    > > otherwise.  "Toy Lens."  Hilarious!

    >
    > >http://dpreview.com/news/1106/11062311pentaxqpreview.asp

    >
    > Interesting. Their arrangement for getting the flash away from the lens axis
    > is certainly unusual. Looks like a Rube Goldberg machine.
    >
    > But where, oh where, is the Nikon ILC that we were assured would be here
    > before now?


    Under 18ft of debris in Japan?
     
    RichA, Jun 23, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    Mike Guest

    On 23/06/2011 8:07 AM, RichA wrote:
    > I like that one lens. Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
    > seen. Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
    > they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
    > otherwise. "Toy Lens." Hilarious!
    >
    > http://dpreview.com/news/1106/11062311pentaxqpreview.asp
    >

    All I can say it's a digital Pentax Auto 100.... without the SLR part!

    Mike
     
    Mike, Jun 24, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    Mike Guest

    On 23/06/2011 8:07 AM, RichA wrote:
    > I like that one lens. Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
    > seen. Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
    > they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
    > otherwise. "Toy Lens." Hilarious!
    >
    > http://dpreview.com/news/1106/11062311pentaxqpreview.asp
    >

    All I can say it's a digital Pentax Auto 110.... without the SLR part!

    Mike
     
    Mike, Jun 24, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 23, 4:54 pm, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:07:56 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >I like that one lens.  Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
    > >seen.  Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
    > >they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
    > >otherwise.  "Toy Lens."  Hilarious!

    >
    > >http://dpreview.com/news/1106/11062311pentaxqpreview.asp

    >
    > Magnesium body!
    >
    > At the first sign of battery trouble, the things a bomb.
    >
    > They should have used a plastic body.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Eric Stevens


    Lithium + water + plastic = napalm
     
    RichA, Jun 24, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/23/2011 8:53 PM, RichA wrote:
    > On Jun 23, 4:54 pm, Eric Stevens<> wrote:
    >> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:07:56 -0700 (PDT), RichA<>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I like that one lens. Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
    >>> seen. Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
    >>> they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
    >>> otherwise. "Toy Lens." Hilarious!

    >>
    >>> http://dpreview.com/news/1106/11062311pentaxqpreview.asp

    >>
    >> Magnesium body!
    >>
    >> At the first sign of battery trouble, the things a bomb.
    >>
    >> They should have used a plastic body.
    >>
    >> Regards,
    >>
    >> Eric Stevens

    >
    > Lithium + water + plastic = napalm


    Y Our knowledge of chemistry is underwhelming.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jun 24, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/23/2011 10:11 PM, Rich wrote:
    > PeterN<> wrote in news:4e03ee80$0$12487
    > $-secrets.com:
    >
    >> On 6/23/2011 8:53 PM, RichA wrote:
    >>> On Jun 23, 4:54 pm, Eric Stevens<> wrote:
    >>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:07:56 -0700 (PDT), RichA<>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I like that one lens. Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
    >>>>> seen. Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
    >>>>> they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
    >>>>> otherwise. "Toy Lens." Hilarious!
    >>>>
    >>>>> http://dpreview.com/news/1106/11062311pentaxqpreview.asp
    >>>>
    >>>> Magnesium body!
    >>>>
    >>>> At the first sign of battery trouble, the things a bomb.
    >>>>
    >>>> They should have used a plastic body.
    >>>>
    >>>> Regards,
    >>>>
    >>>> Eric Stevens
    >>>
    >>> Lithium + water + plastic = napalm

    >>
    >> Y Our knowledge of chemistry is underwhelming.
    >>

    >
    > I'm sure your knowledge of "chemistry" is second to none.


    the issue is your qualifications to make your statement.

    FYI I am NOT an expert in chemistry, but I do know enough to understand
    that there are different formulations of plastics. I also understand
    enough organic chemistry to understand that certain reactions cannot
    take place without the requisite environmental conditions being present.
    Some reactions require a catalyst.
    So now pray tell us how you would create this reaction. It is in the
    public interest to know whether the plastics used in camera bodies, as
    formulated, can create a danger.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jun 24, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:20:43 -0400, John A. <> wrote:
    : On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 06:01:51 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    : wrote:
    :
    : >On Jun 23, 8:25 am, Bowser <> wrote:
    : >> On 6/23/2011 8:07 AM, RichA wrote:
    : >>
    : >> > I like that one lens.  Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
    : >> > seen.  Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
    : >> > they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
    : >> > otherwise.  "Toy Lens."  Hilarious!
    : >>
    : >> >http://dpreview.com/news/1106/11062311pentaxqpreview.asp
    : >>
    : >> Man, this thing has "utter failure" written all over it. Who would carry
    : >> this when they can carry a superzoom with the same size sensor? Can't
    : >> wait to see the (lack of) image quality.
    : >
    : >Wow! I missed this, someone posted that is has NO in-camera
    : >shutter!! Which means no adapting other lenses!! Enthusiasts need
    : >not apply!!
    :
    : I imagine a mechanical shutter would get in the way of the EVF add-on
    : functioning.

    Before matters took the turn that they have recently, I had thought it was
    axiomatic that a serious mirrorless camera would have no mechanical shutter,
    even in the lens. The (very fast) onboard computer would simply sample the EVF
    input for the requisite period of time. Have the manufacturers given up on
    that idea for the foreseeable future? Or was it never anything but wishful
    thinking on my part?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 25, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:58:13 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
    : RichA wrote:
    : > I like that one lens. Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
    : > seen. Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
    : > they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
    : > otherwise. "Toy Lens." Hilarious!
    : >
    : > http://dpreview.com/news/1106/11062311pentaxqpreview.asp
    :
    : Interesting. Their arrangement for getting the flash away from the lens axis
    : is certainly unusual. Looks like a Rube Goldberg machine.

    Which reminds me: I've been getting redeye recently, despite using my 580EX
    instead of the built-in flash. That didn't use to happen. What the hell am I
    doing wrong?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 25, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:54:43 -0400, PeterN <>
    wrote:
    : On 6/23/2011 8:53 PM, RichA wrote:
    : > On Jun 23, 4:54 pm, Eric Stevens<> wrote:
    : >> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:07:56 -0700 (PDT), RichA<>
    : >> wrote:
    : >>
    : >>> I like that one lens. Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
    : >>> seen. Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
    : >>> they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
    : >>> otherwise. "Toy Lens." Hilarious!
    : >>
    : >>> http://dpreview.com/news/1106/11062311pentaxqpreview.asp
    : >>
    : >> Magnesium body!
    : >>
    : >> At the first sign of battery trouble, the things a bomb.
    : >>
    : >> They should have used a plastic body.
    : >>
    : >> Regards,
    : >>
    : >> Eric Stevens
    : >
    : > Lithium + water + plastic = napalm
    :
    : Your knowledge of chemistry is underwhelming.

    Well, yeah, but I don't think Eric is right either. IIRC, magnesium is a
    problem only if it's pure and finely divided.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 25, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 01:39:33 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:58:13 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
    >: RichA wrote:
    >: > I like that one lens. Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
    >: > seen. Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
    >: > they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
    >: > otherwise. "Toy Lens." Hilarious!
    >: >
    >: > http://dpreview.com/news/1106/11062311pentaxqpreview.asp
    >:
    >: Interesting. Their arrangement for getting the flash away from the lens axis
    >: is certainly unusual. Looks like a Rube Goldberg machine.
    >
    >Which reminds me: I've been getting redeye recently, despite using my 580EX
    >instead of the built-in flash. That didn't use to happen. What the hell am I
    >doing wrong?


    Allergy season?
     
    John A., Jun 25, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 11:33:18 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
    : Robert Coe wrote:
    : > On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:58:13 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    : > wrote:
    : >> RichA wrote:
    : >>> I like that one lens. Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
    : >>> seen. Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
    : >>> they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
    : >>> otherwise. "Toy Lens." Hilarious!
    : >>>
    : >>> http://dpreview.com/news/1106/11062311pentaxqpreview.asp
    : >>
    : >> Interesting. Their arrangement for getting the flash away from the
    : >> lens axis is certainly unusual. Looks like a Rube Goldberg machine.
    : >
    : > Which reminds me: I've been getting redeye recently, despite using my
    : > 580EX instead of the built-in flash. That didn't use to happen. What
    : > the hell am I doing wrong?
    :
    : Shooting from too far away?
    :
    : Anything that narrows the angle between flash-to-pupil and lens-to-pupil
    : will increase the likelihood of getting redeye. I don't know how you could
    : get redeye with an external flash at a close distance. But I have gotten
    : really bad redeye with external flash when shooting dancers on a stage
    : about 30 feet away.

    You're probably on to something. In our City Council chamber, where I've
    photographed several recent awards ceremonies, I've taken to positioning
    myself one Councillor's desk farther back. It gives me a better angle and
    reduces the sensation of looking up at the recipient. But it may be having
    exactly the effect you describe. Your insight, along with some similar
    observations by Alan Browne, should help me get it right. Thanks; I'm glad I
    asked.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 26, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 11:55:10 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:
    : On 2011-06-25 01:39 , Robert Coe wrote:
    : > On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:58:13 -0400, "Neil Harrington"<> wrote:
    : > : RichA wrote:
    : > :> I like that one lens. Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
    : > :> seen. Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
    : > :> they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
    : > :> otherwise. "Toy Lens." Hilarious!
    : > :>
    : > :> http://dpreview.com/news/1106/11062311pentaxqpreview.asp
    : > :
    : > : Interesting. Their arrangement for getting the flash away from the lens axis
    : > : is certainly unusual. Looks like a Rube Goldberg machine.
    : >
    : > Which reminds me: I've been getting redeye recently, despite using my 580EX
    : > instead of the built-in flash. That didn't use to happen. What the hell am I
    : > doing wrong?
    :
    : If you're shooting in a dark venue (where pupils are dilated), you're
    : more likely to get red-eye. [1]
    :
    : If you're shooting wide aperture, you're more likely to get red-eye.
    :
    : If you're shooting a tele lens, you're more likely to get red-eye.

    Yeah, all three of those are the case.

    : If you're shooting with the flash mounted on-camera, you're more likely
    : to get red-eye. [2] Use bounce flash whenever possible (for other good
    : reasons as well).

    Like you, I much prefer bounce flash. But the City Council Chamber, where I do
    a lot of my event shooting, is two stories high, with a ceiling that isn't
    very reflective. When I try bounce flash there, it usually gets lost in the
    ether.

    : The above all compound.
    :
    : [1] As you surely know, camera and flash systems shoot a couple short
    : pops of flash or use a steady bright light to get the subject's pupils
    : to contract. These systems are effective (most of the time), but then
    : engage the subject artificially.
    :
    : Further, on my Maxxum 7D it seemed the flash pops of the exposure
    : pre-flash seemed perfectly designed to cause the subject to blink just
    : on time for the actual exposure.

    I've had that happen many times. Very annoying. And if I take two or three
    shots (the most they'll let me take, per recipient, at an awards ceremony),
    the recipient will have his eyes closed in one, and the mayor (or City Manager
    or both) will have his eyes closed in the other. I'm thinking of trying burst
    mode to compensate.

    : [2] If you can't bounce the flash you can tilt the head up and extend
    : the little white card (or add a white business card with an elastic
    : band) to get the flash source further off lens axis. Or add an
    : accessory bouncer/diffuser.

    That's a good idea; I hadn't thought of using the catchlight card.

    The room is dimly, but fairly evenly lit, except on winter afternoons; and on
    one occasion I jettisoned the flash and went with available light. It avoided
    the redeye problem, of course, but I thought the lighting on the faces was too
    flat.

    When all else fails, Canon's "ZoomBrowser" photo editor does have a fairly
    decent redeye corrector. But you have to apply it after the conversion from
    RAW to JPEG, so using it is a pain in the workflow. Now if they'd only put
    that capability into DPP ...

    Thanks for the advice, Alan!

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 26, 2011
    #16
  17. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 14:19:00 -0400, John A. <> wrote:
    : On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 01:39:33 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    :
    : >On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:58:13 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
    : >: RichA wrote:
    : >: > I like that one lens. Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
    : >: > seen. Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
    : >: > they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
    : >: > otherwise. "Toy Lens." Hilarious!
    : >: >
    : >: > http://dpreview.com/news/1106/11062311pentaxqpreview.asp
    : >:
    : >: Interesting. Their arrangement for getting the flash away from the lens axis
    : >: is certainly unusual. Looks like a Rube Goldberg machine.
    : >
    : >Which reminds me: I've been getting redeye recently, despite using my 580EX
    : >instead of the built-in flash. That didn't use to happen. What the hell am I
    : >doing wrong?
    :
    : Allergy season?

    You think? Gee, maybe I'm allergic to CF cards.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 26, 2011
    #17
  18. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/25/2011 2:19 PM, John A. wrote:
    > On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 01:39:33 -0400, Robert Coe<> wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:58:13 -0400, "Neil Harrington"<> wrote:
    >> : RichA wrote:
    >> :> I like that one lens. Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
    >> :> seen. Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
    >> :> they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
    >> :> otherwise. "Toy Lens." Hilarious!
    >> :>
    >> :> http://dpreview.com/news/1106/11062311pentaxqpreview.asp
    >> :
    >> : Interesting. Their arrangement for getting the flash away from the lens axis
    >> : is certainly unusual. Looks like a Rube Goldberg machine.
    >>
    >> Which reminds me: I've been getting redeye recently, despite using my 580EX
    >> instead of the built-in flash. That didn't use to happen. What the hell am I
    >> doing wrong?

    >
    > Allergy season?



    Have you tried a diffuser?

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jun 26, 2011
    #18
  19. Robert Coe <> wrote:

    > Which reminds me: I've been getting redeye recently, despite using my 580EX
    > instead of the built-in flash. That didn't use to happen. What the hell am I
    > doing wrong?


    You're asking questions instead of running.

    ....

    It's the zombie invasion your municipial government has no good
    disaster plans for.
    http://www.google.de/#q=zombie invasion disaster plans
    RUN!

    -Wolf'SCNR'gang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 27, 2011
    #19
  20. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 08:04:00 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
    : Neil Harrington wrote:
    :
    : >
    : > Bounce flash of course should eliminate any possibility of redeye.
    : > Otherwise, anything that increases the flash -> eye -> camera angle
    : > will tend to eliminate it, such as a closer shooting distance. I've
    : > seen some recommend avoiding close distance in hopes of avoiding
    : > redeye, but this is exactly wrong.
    :
    : I should add here that I have many times taken flash shots of someone
    : just across a restaurant table, at distances of three feet or less, with
    : a pocket-sized camera, and even with the close distance between flash
    : and lens axis usual for that type of camera I cannot remember ever gotten
    : redeye when doing that. At greater distances however (say, four feet or
    : more) redeye is a frequent problem with such cameras when using flash.

    When you're that close, even the on-camera flash may have enough separation
    from the lens axis.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 30, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. philo

    april 1st double whammy

    philo, Apr 1, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    436
    Shel-hed
    Apr 3, 2004
  2. Mike Russell

    The April Curvemeister Class starts tomorrow, April 1

    Mike Russell, Mar 31, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    1,057
    evadnikufesin
    Apr 2, 2007
  3. thingy
    Replies:
    36
    Views:
    870
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Nov 5, 2006
  4. manageyou
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    418
    manageyou
    Apr 12, 2005
  5. davy
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    885
    Mike Jones
    Mar 30, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page